Natanauan vs. Tolentino, 805 SCRA 571, October 11, 2016

5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 805

A.C. No. 4269. October 11, 2016.*

DOLORES NATANAUAN, complainant, vs. ATTY.
ROBERTO P. TOLENTINO, respondent.
Due Process; The most basic tenet of due process is the right to
be heard, hence, denial of due process means the total lack of
opportunity to be heard or to have one’s day in court.—Atty.
Tolentino, like any respondent in a disbarment or administrative
proceeding, is entitled to due process. The most basic tenet of due
process is the right to be heard, hence, denial of due process
means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one’s
day in court. As a rule, no denial of due process takes place where
a party has been given an opportunity to be heard and to present
his case. Rule 138, Section 30 of the Revised Rules of Court also
provides: Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or
suspension.—No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the
practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon
reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce
witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or
counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and
answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the
matter ex parte. Contrary to his claims, Atty. Tolentino was not
denied due process or deprived of an opportunity to be heard. The
records show that his then counsel Atty. Fuentes filed a Comment
on his behalf. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
May 13, 2011 Resolution of the IBP Board, and a Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration. His participation through pleadings
and motions cured whatever defect that may have attended the
issuance of notices regarding the proceedings held before the IBP.
Attorneys; Practice of Law; The practice of law is neither a
natural nor a constitutional right but a privilege bestowed by the
State only upon the deserving and worthy for conferment of such
privilege.—The practice of law is neither a natural nor a
constitutional right but a privilege bestowed by the State only
upon the deserving and worthy for conferment of such privilege.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001796e7e29c0f633dc54003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of
the legal pro-
_______________
* EN BANC.

572
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Natanauan vs. Tolentino
fession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to

the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the
privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer’s
Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and
private capacities. It is a privilege granted only to those who
possess the strict intellectual and moral qualifications required of
lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice. As guardian of the legal profession, this
Court has the ultimate disciplinary power over members of the
Bar to ensure that the highest standards of competence, honesty
and fair dealing are maintained.
Same; Disbarment; Suspension; A lawyer may be suspended
or disbarred from the practice of law for any of the grounds
provided under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
—Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred from the practice of law for
any of the following grounds: 1) Deceit; 2) Malpractice; 3) Gross
misconduct in office; 4) Grossly immoral conduct; 5) Conviction of
a crime involving moral turpitude; 6) Violation of the lawyer’s
oath; 7) Willful disobedience to the lawful order of the court; 8)
Willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority to
do so; and 9) Solicitation of cases at law for the purpose of gain
either personally or through paid agents or brokers.
Same; Same; The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a
punishment to deprive a lawyer of a means of livelihood. Rather, it
is intended to protect the courts and the public from members of
the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the
esteemed and noble profession.—A lawyer may be disciplined or
suspended from the practice of law for any misconduct, whether
in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in character, honesty, probity and good demeanor and
thus unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. A lawyer may
be disbarred or suspended not only for acts and omissions of

malpractice and dishonesty in his professional dealings. He may
also be penalized for gross misconduct not directly connected with
his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and
his unworthiness of the principles that, the privilege to practice
law confers upon him. We, however, emphasize that the purpose
of disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive a lawyer of
a means of livelihood. Rather, it is intended to protect the courts
and the public from members of the bar who have

573
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 573

become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and

noble profession. Considering the serious consequences of the
disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has
held that substantial evidence is necessary to justify the
imposition of the administrative penalty.
Same; Lawyer’s Oath; All lawyers are obligated to uphold
their Oaths lest they be subjected to administrative cases and
sanctions.—The Lawyer’s Oath is a covenant every lawyer
undertakes to become and remain part of the legal profession. It
is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that
must be upheld and keep inviolable. It is a source of obligation
and duty for every lawyer, which includes an undertaking to obey
the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities therein,
and not to do falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.
All lawyers are obligated to uphold their Oaths lest they be
subjected to administrative cases and sanctions.
Same; Same; Dishonesty; For his acts of dishonesty, Atty.
Tolentino not only violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), he also failed to observe
his duty as an officer of the court.—We reiterate that a lawyer is
not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as
such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of
dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on
the part of a lawyer, an officer of the court, which visibly tends to
obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the administration of
justice is contumacious, calling for both an exercise of disciplinary
action and application of the contempt power. For his acts of
dishonesty, Atty. Tolentino not only violated the Lawyer’s Oath
and Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he also
failed to observe his duty as an officer of the court. Furthermore,

Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provide
that a lawyer shall, “uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes” and “at all
times, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.” Atty. Tolentino’s
deliberate nonparticipation in the disciplinary proceedings shows
a lack of respect for the legal (disciplinary) process and sullies the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. We agree with the
IBP that this constitutes another reason to suspend Atty.
Tolentino from the practice of law: x x x We cannot

574

ignore the fact that by virtue of one’s membership in the IBP,

a lawyer thus submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the
organization. x x x Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly
ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter
disrespect to the judicial institution. x x x It is necessary for
respondent to acknowledge the orders of the Commission in
deference to its authority over him as a member of the IBP. His
wanton disregard of its lawful orders subjects him to disciplinary
sanction.
Same; Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at
all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public
at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty,
including suspension and disbarment.—All lawyers must
inculcate in themselves that the practice of law is not a right but
a privilege granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar
must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times,
whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,
and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession
justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including
suspension and disbarment.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Motion

to Reopen Disbarment Case.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Samson, Montesa, Alcid, Villacorta and Associates for
complainant.
Rolando B. Aquino for respondent.

JARDELEZA, J.:

For the Court’s consideration is Atty. Roberto P.
Tolentino’s (Atty. Tolentino) motion to have his disbarment
case reopened and reheard on the ground that he was
denied his constitutional right to due process.

575
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 575

The case originated from a disbarment complaint1 filed

by Dolores Natanauan (Dolores) accusing Atty. Tolentino of
deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Facts

Complainant Dolores alleged that she is a co-owner
(with her siblings Rafaela, Ernestina, and Romulo [Dolores,
et al.]) of a parcel of land with an area of about 50,000
square meters located in Tagaytay City.2 On January 3,
1978, they sold this land to Alejo Tolentino (Alejo) for
P500,000.00. At the time, the title to the property had not
yet been issued by the Land Registration Commission.3 The
parties thus agreed that payment for the same shall be
made in installments, as follows: P80,000.00 upon the
execution of the contract and the remaining balance in two
(2) installments, payable one (1) year after the issuance of
the title and then one (1) year thereafter.4
On August 9, 1979, and after the execution of the
contract of sale between the parties, the Register of Deeds
of Cavite issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
1075935 in Alejo’s favor. Despite several requests from
Dolores, et al., Alejo, however, failed to settle the remaining
obligation. Thus, on May 14, 1991, Dolores, et al. filed a
case against Alejo and his wife Filomena, docketed as Civil
Case No. TG-1188, for the recovery of possession of
immovable property, declaration of nullity of the deed of
sale, and damages.6
On March 30, 1993, the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
promulgated a Decision7 in Civil Case No. TG-1188
declaring the
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2-14.

2 Id., at pp. 2-3.
3 Id., at p. 4.
4 Id., at pp. 3, 23-24.
5 Id., at p. 30.
6 Id., at p. 46.
7 Id., at pp. 42-48.

576

rescission of the contract of sale. Consequently, it ordered:

(1) the reconveyance of the land back to Dolores, et al.; (2)
the cancellation of TCT No. T-107593; (3) the issuance of a
new title in favor of Dolores, et al.; and (4) the payment of
damages by Alejo and Filomena.
Sometime in June 1993, Dolores discovered that the
TCT No. 107593 under Alejo’s name was issued not on the
basis of the January 3, 1978 contract but on a Deed of
Sale dated August 3, 1979, purportedly executed by their
father Jose Natanauan (Jose), Salud Marqueses,
Melquides8 Parungao and Asuncion Fajardo (Jose, et al.).9
She further discovered a Joint Affidavit dated August 6,
1979, purportedly executed by Jose, et al. attesting to the
absence of tenants or lessees in the property10 and
another Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979, executed
between Dolores, et al. as vendors and Atty. Tolentino as
vendee covering purportedly the same property.11
Dolores claims that the foregoing documents were
falsified as Jose, who died in Talisay, Batangas on June 12,
1977, could not have signed the Deed of Sale dated August
3, 1979 and the Joint Affidavit dated August 6, 1979.12
Furthermore, the Deeds of Sale were all notarized by
Notary Public Perfecto P. Fernandez (Perfecto) who Dolores
later on discovered was not commissioned as a notary
public for and in the City of Manila for the year 1979.13
It was also around the same time that Dolores
discovered that the title to the property has been
subsequently registered, under TCT No. T-21993, in the

name of Buck Estate,
_______________
8 Also referred to as “Melquiades” in other parts of the records.

9 Rollo, pp. 4-5, 26-27.
10 Id., at pp. 5-6, 28.
11 Id., at pp. 8, 38-40.
12 Id., at pp. 4, 25.
13 Id., at pp. 6, 29.

577
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 577

Inc., where Atty. Tolentino is a stockholder,14 and

mortgaged to Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation for
Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00).15
Thus, on June 1, 1994, Dolores filed the present
disbarment complaint against Atty. Tolentino and Perfecto
for their alleged acts of falsification. In her complaint,
Dolores attached an Affidavit dated December 2, 1980,
where Alejo and Filomena attested that the subject
property never belonged to them in truth or in fact, the
true and absolute owner of the same being Alejo’s brother,
Atty. Tolentino.16 Notably, this Affidavit bears Atty.
Tolentino’s conformity.17
In a Resolution18 dated July 18, 1994, this Court
required respondents to file their Comment within ten (10)
days from notice.
Despite several attempts, a copy of the Resolution was
not served on Perfecto due to lack of knowledge as to his
whereabouts.19 Atty. Tolentino, on the other hand, was able
to file the required Comment20 through his then-counsel
Atty. Tranquilino M. Fuentes (Atty. Fuentes).
In his Comment, Atty. Tolentino specifically denied
having any participation in the falsification of the Deed of
Sale dated August 3, 1979,21 and vehemently denied any
participation in the transactions, deeds of sale and other
documents covering the subject property.22 Atty. Tolentino
claimed that there was no specific or concrete allegation of
fact in the Complaint as to how he colluded with Alejo and
Filomena in the commission of
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 10-11, 49-53.

15 Id., at pp. 11, 49-50.
16 Id., at pp. 8-9, 40-41.
17 Id., at p. 41.
18 Id., at p. 55.
19 Id., at pp. 68-70, 73, 80.
20 Id., at pp. 56-58.
21 Id., at p. 56.
22 Id., at p. 57.

578

the alleged falsifications. He further pointed out that: (1)

he does not appear as party to any of the falsified
documents; and (2) it was not alleged that he benefited
from the same.23 Atty. Tolentino also averred that Buck
Estate, Inc. did not acquire the property from Alejo and
Filomena, but rather bought the same in a 1990 auction
sale after the property was foreclosed due to the latter’s
failure to pay their loan obligations. He further alleged that
he does not personally know his corespondent Perfecto and
has never dealt nor met with him in any capacity.24
In her Reply,25 Dolores countered that Atty. Tolentino
cannot disclaim knowledge or participation of the
falsification as the latter, in fact, also misrepresented
before the Supreme Court that he is the absolute owner of
the subject parcel of land by virtue of the March 9, 1979
Deed of Sale notarized by Fernandez. To support this,
Dolores cited this Court’s decision in Banco de Oro v.
Bayuga26 involving the same subject property.
In the meantime, and in the course of her efforts to
locate respondent Perfecto, Dolores discovered that
Perfecto was not a member of the Philippine Bar as
evidenced by a Certification27 dated March 18, 1996 issued
by then Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Erlinda
C. Verzosa. Neither has he been commissioned as notary
public for and in the City of Manila since 1979 to 1996.28
On December 4, 1996, this Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation, report and

recommenda-
_______________
23 Id.
24 Id., at pp. 57-58.
25 Id., at pp. 61-64.
26 No. L-49568, October 17, 1979, 93 SCRA 443.
27 Rollo, p. 105.
28 Id., at p. 106.

579
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 579

tion.29 Due to Atty. Tolentino’s repeated failure and refusal

to appear on the scheduled hearings, Dolores was allowed
to give testimony and present her evidence ex parte.30

Findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

In a Report and Recommendation31 dated January 31,
2010, IBP Commissioner Edmund T. Espina
(Commissioner Espina) found that Atty. Tolentino violated
the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.32
Commissioner Espina gave credence to Dolores’
testimony and found that this and other supporting
documentary evidence clearly illustrated the acts of
falsification committed by Atty. Tolentino in connivance
with his brother Alejo and associate Perfecto.33 Specifically,
Commissioner Espina inferred Atty. Tolentino’s direct
participation in the falsifications from the fact that he was
the one who personally entered into the subject contract
with Dolores, et al., merely using his brother Alejo and the
sister-in-law Filomena as dummies.34
x x x Circumstances exist which point to respondent’s

complicity in the two (2) acts of falsification — he is the brother of
Alejo Tolentino, the original vendee, and the parcel of land
consisting of fifty (sic) (50,000) square meters, more or less, was
subsequently conveyed, transferred and ceded to Buck Estate,
Inc., of which he is one of the incorporators and stockholders, and
which mortgaged the parcel of land with the bank. Another

important document which points to respondent’s fraudulent act
is the very Affidavit of Spouses Alejo and Filomena Tolentino
_______________
29 Id., at p. 112.
30 Id., at p. 118.
31 Id., at pp. 214-223.
32 Id., at p. 221.
33 Id., at pp. 220-221.
34 Id., at p. 220.

580

dated December 2, 1990 strongly stating, among other things,

that subject parcel of land had never belonged to them, the true
and absolute owner thereof being respondent, Atty. Roberto P.
Tolentino. More importantly, said Deed of Sale and Joint-
Affidavit were notarized by Perfecto P. Fernandez, a close
associate of respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, both of them
being residents and/or holding office in the same address, and
worse, who is not a notary public or lawyer.
Not content with the foregoing felonious, unlawful and
malicious acts, respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino committed
yet another falsification when he filed and submitted to the
Supreme Court a Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 relative to
that case entitled [“Banco de Oro v. Bayuga”], docketed as No. L-
49568, 93 SCRA 443. Such Deed of Sale shows that complainant
and her brother and sisters sold on installment basis the same
parcel of land to respondent.35

Lastly, Commissioner Espina found that Atty.
Tolentino’s failure to appear before the IBP-CBD was
another ground for disciplinary action. As a lawyer, he is
required to submit himself to the disciplinary authority of
the IBP.36 Commissioner Espina thus recommended that
Atty. Tolentino be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months.
On May 13, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP
Board) issued a Resolution37 adopting Commissioner
Espina’s Report and Recommendation but increasing the

recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of
law for six (6) months to three (3) years.38
Atty. Tolentino filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
Motion to Re-Open Case39 and a Supplemental Motion for
Recon-
_______________
35 Id., at pp. 220-221.

36 Id., at p. 222.
37 Id., at p. 243.
38 Id.
39 Id., at pp. 224-227.

581
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 581

sideration40 dated July 29, 2011 and August 25, 2011,

respectively. In his Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration, Atty. Tolentino attached a Sinumpaang
Salaysay41 signed by his brother Alejo and wife Filomena
stating that they are, in fact, the true owners of the
property subject of this case and that Atty. Moises Samson
(counsel for Dolores) made them sign an affidavit written
in English under the following pretext: “x x x para
maisaayos ang bilihan namin ng lupa nina Romulo
[Natanauan] at mga kapatid nito x x x.”42 They also denied
attesting to such affidavit before anyone.
In a Resolution43 dated December 15, 2012, the IBP
Board unanimously denied Atty. Tolentino’s motions. The
IBP Board’s resolutions were thereafter transmitted to this
Court on April 4, 2013.44
On August 6, 2013, Atty. Tolentino filed a Manifestation
and/or Motion45 claiming that he was denied his
constitutional right to due process when the IBP Board
failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and present
his side. Atty. Tolentino claims that neither he nor his
counsel received a subpoena or notice of the order directing
parties to file their memorandum. He likewise challenges
the findings made by Commissioner Espina, on the ground
that the latter simply relied on Dolores’ Memorandum,
there being no transcript of stenographic notes of the
proceedings.46 Atty. Tolentino further decries the IBP

Board’s decision to increase the recommended penalty from
six (6) months to three (3) years suspension from the
practice of law, as this was done without giving him the
opportunity to be notified and heard.47
_______________
40 Id., at pp. 232-236.

41 Id., at pp. 237-238.
42 Id., at p. 237.
43 Id., at p. 242.
44 Id., at p. 241.
45 Id., at pp. 347-353.
46 Id., at p. 348.
47 Id., at p. 349.

582

Issues

The issues to be resolved in this case are as follows: (1)
whether there was a violation of Atty. Tolentino’s
constitutional right to due process; and (2) whether Atty.
Tolentino committed deceit, malpractice and gross
misconduct through the aforementioned falsifications in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
Lawyer’s Oath which would merit his disbarment and
removal from the legal profession.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court resolves to deny Atty. Tolentino’s motion and
affirm the IBP Resolution with modification.

There was no denial of due
process and opportunity to
be heard.

Atty. Tolentino, like any respondent in a disbarment or
administrative proceeding, is entitled to due process. The
most basic tenet of due process is the right to be heard,
hence, denial of due process means the total lack of

opportunity to be heard or to have one’s day in court.48 As a
rule, no denial of due process takes place where a party has
been given an opportunity to be heard and to present his
case.49
Rule 138, Section 30 of the Revised Rules of Court also
provides:
Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension.—

No attorney shall be removed or suspended
_______________
48 Ylaya v. Gacott, A.C. No. 6475, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 452,
463.
49 Id. See also Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization v.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 108625, March 11, 1996, 254 SCRA 565, 574.

583
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 583

from the practice of his profession, until he has had full

opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against
him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by
himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to
appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to
determine the matter ex parte.

Contrary to his claims, Atty. Tolentino was not denied
due process or deprived of an opportunity to be heard. The
records show that his then counsel Atty. Fuentes filed a
Comment on his behalf. He also filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the May 13, 2011 Resolution of the IBP
Board, and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
His participation through pleadings and motions cured
whatever defect that may have attended the issuance of
notices regarding the proceedings held before the IBP.
In Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR),50 we held that any defect in the
observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion
for reconsideration and that denial of due process cannot be
successfully invoked by a party who was afforded the
opportunity to be heard.51 We likewise reiterated that
defects in procedural due process may be cured when the

party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.52
Knowing that there is a pending administrative
complaint against him, Atty. Tolentino should have
actively and voluntarily participated in the case especially
so when he believes that his defense is meritorious.
Instead, after filing his Comment containing bare denials
and facts unsupported by any
_______________
50 G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276.

51 Id., at p. 285, citing Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
156253, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 741, 746.
52 Id., citing Autencio v. Mañara, G.R. No. 152752, January 19, 2005,
449 SCRA 46, 55-56.

584

proof, Atty. Tolentino deliberately failed to participate in

the proceeding and now hides behind the flimsy excuse that
no notices were received by him or his counsel.
As a lawyer, Atty. Tolentino is presumed to understand
the gravity of a disbarment proceeding. His failure to
present his side of the controversy, despite opportunity for
him to do so, constitutes a waiver by him of such right.53

The right to practice law is a
privilege accorded only to
those worthy of it.

The practice of law is neither a natural nor a
constitutional right but a privilege bestowed by the State
only upon the deserving and worthy for conferment of such
privilege.54
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the
practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that
the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court
may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to
observe and respect the Lawyer’s Oath and the canons of
ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities.55
It is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict

intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers
who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice.56
As guardian of the legal profession, this Court has the
ultimate disciplinary power over members of the Bar to
ensure
_______________
53 Roces v. Aportadera, A.C. No. 2936, March 31, 1995, 243 SCRA 108,
114.
54 Alcantara v. De Vera, A.C. No. 5859, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA
674, 679.
55 Embido v. Pe, Jr., A.C. No. 6732, October 22, 2013, 708 SCRA 1, 10-
11.
56 In Re: Al Argosino, B.M. No. 712, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 26, 30.

585
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 585

that the highest standards of competence, honesty and fair

dealing are maintained.57
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred from the
practice of law for any of the following grounds:
1) Deceit;
2) Malpractice;
3) Gross misconduct in office;
4) Grossly immoral conduct;
5) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
6) Violation of the lawyer’s oath;
7) Willful disobedience to the lawful order of the court;
8) Willful appearance as an attorney for a party without
authority to do so; and
9) Solicitation of cases at law for the purpose of gain
either personally or through paid agents or brokers.58

A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended from the
practice of law for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in character, honesty, probity and good demeanor
and thus unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.59
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended not only for acts

and omissions of malpractice and dishonesty in his
professional dealings. He may also be penalized for gross
misconduct not directly connected with his professional
duties that reveal his unfitness for the
_______________
57 Overgaard v. Valdez, A.C. No. 7902, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA
567, 582.
58 See also Jimenez v. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548, December 10, 2014,
744 SCRA 215, 240.
59 Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, A.C. No. 6148, February 27, 2004, 424
SCRA 42, 49.

586

office and his unworthiness of the principles that, the

privilege to practice law confers upon him.60
We, however, emphasize that the purpose of disbarment
is not meant as a punishment to deprive a lawyer of a
means of livelihood. Rather, it is intended to protect the
courts and the public from members of the bar who have
become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and
noble profession.61 Considering the serious consequences of
the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this
Court has held that substantial evidence is necessary to
justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.62
In this case, respondent Atty. Tolentino is charged with
violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Lawyer’s Oath is a covenant every lawyer
undertakes to become and remain part of the legal
profession.63 It is not mere facile words, drift and hollow,
but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable.64 It is a source of obligation and duty for every
lawyer,65 which includes an undertaking to obey the laws
and legal orders of duly constituted authorities therein,
and not to do falsehood, nor consent to the
_______________
60 Lizaso v. Amante, A.C. No. 2019, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 1, 9-10,
citing In Re: Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567 (1923).
61 Yap-Paras v. Paras, A.C. No. 4947, June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 358,
362.
62 Reyes v. Nieva, A.C. No. 8560, September 6, 2016, 802 SCRA 196,
citing Cabas v. Sususco, A.C. No. 8677, June 15, 2016, 793 SCRA 309.
63 REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Sec. 17; Petition for Leave to
Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December
17, 2007, 540 SCRA 424.
64 Tan v. Diamante, A.C. No. 7766, August 5, 2014, 732 SCRA 1,
9; Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September 9, 1999, 314 SCRA 1, 7.
65 Madrid v. Dealca, A.C. No. 7474, September 9, 2014, 734 SCRA
468, 478.

587
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 587

doing of any in court. All lawyers are obligated to uphold

their Oaths lest they be subjected to administrative cases
and sanctions.66
Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, on the other hand, read as follows:
Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the

laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar.
Canon 10 – A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to
the court.

Complainant sufficiently proved
the charges of falsification
against Atty. Tolentino.

In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant; and the Court will exercise its
disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the
complaint with substantial evidence.67
In her Complaint, Dolores alleged that she (with her
siblings) sold the property to Alejo and Filomena,
presenting as proof thereof the Deed of Sale dated January
3, 1978. We note, however, that Dolores would later on

disclose68 the actual transaction which transpired between
them and Atty. Tolentino involving the subject property,
viz.:
On ex parte presentation of evidence, complainant testified that

she knew personally respondent Atty. Roberto P.
Tolentino as he was the one who actually
_______________
66 Id.
67 Reyes v. Nieva, supra note 62.
68 See Memorandum for Complainant, Rollo, pp. 141-159.

588

purchased their parcel of land located at Barangay Sunga,

Tagaytay City consisting of FIFTY THOUSAND (50,000) square
meters; she and her brother, Romulo Natanauan and sisters,
Rafaela Natanauan and Ernestina Natanauan, are co-owners of
said parcel of land as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated August 3,
1976 x x x executed in their favor by Jose Natanauan and Salud
Marqueses.
At the time of the said sale, Jose Natanauan and Salud
Marqueses are the registered owners of said parcel of land by
virtue of an Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1822 x x x issued by
the Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite.
Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino purchased said parcel of land
through the intervention of a certain Juan Luna; on
January 3, 1978, they were accompanied by Juan Luna to the
Office of Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino located at Roxas Boulevard,
Manila. Thereat, Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino, paid them the
amount EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (P80,000.00) for and
as down payment for the purchase of said parcel of land.
After receiving such amount, they were asked by him to
sign a Deed of Sale dated August 3, 1979 x x x subject to
the condition that he will cause the transfer of ownership
of the said parcel of land from Jose Natanauan to them
and thereafter, he will pay the unpaid balance of the
purchase price.
Instead of transferring said ownership from Jose Natanauan to

them, she declared that Atty. Roberto Tolentino caused the
transfer of ownership from Jose Natanauan to Spouses Alejo
Tolentino and Filomena Tolentino by executing a falsified Deed of
Sale dated August 3, 1979 x x x and Joint Affidavit dated August
6, 1979 x x x; Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino falsified and forged the
signatures of Jose Natanauan, Salud Marqueses, Melquiades
[Parungao] and Asuncion Fajardo in such documents making it
appear that they (Jose, Salud, Melquiades and Asuncion) sold the
said parcel of land to

589
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 589

Spouses Alejo Tolentino and Filomena Tolentino.69 (Emphasis

supplied)

We agree with Commissioner Espina’s finding that there
is sufficient proof to hold that Atty. Tolentino was involved
in the falsification. The totality of evidence (consisting of
the falsified documents, Dolores’ testimony detailing the
transactions surrounding the land, and the investigation
conducted by this Court) leaves no doubt as to Atty.
Tolentino’s involvement in, or at the very least, benefit
from the acts of falsification imputed against him.
Both Commissioner Espina and the IBP Board found
that Atty. Tolentino’s direct participation in the
falsification of the Deed of Sale and the Joint Affidavit
could be inferred from the fact that he was the one who
personally entered into the subject contract with Dolores
and her siblings, merely using his brother Alejo and his
wife Filomena as dummies.
We agree with the IBP. We find most telling of Atty.
Tolentino’s involvement is the Deed of Sale dated March 9,
197970 which, as found by the IBP, Atty. Tolentino himself
presented71 before this Court in the case of Banco de Oro v.
Bayuga.72 We quote the relevant portion of the Banco De
Oro decision, to wit:
During the oral argument, the Bank was required to submit

copies of the Record on Appeal filed in C.A.-G.R. No. 64130-R of
the Court of Appeals and a chronology of relevant incidents. Its
Compliance was filed on June 8, 1979. TOLENTINO was also
required to submit, not later than the close of office hours of June
7, 1979, copy of the alleged deed showing the purchase by him of
about eight hectares of real estate in Tagaytay City on account of
which he allegedly paid P350,000.00 out of the
_______________
69 Id., at pp. 152-153.

70 Id., at pp. 251-252.
71 Id., at pp. 136-138.
72 Banco de Oro v. Bayuga, supra note 26.

590

P389,000.00 received by him from the loan proceeds.

TOLENTINO complied by submitting on June 7, 1979, at
11:00 AM, a Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 of a parcel of
land of 5 hectares in Tagaytay City for which he is shown
to have made a down payment of P280,000.00. At 3:00 PM of
the same day, he submitted another Deed of Sale dated April 2,
1979 over a piece of property of 2 hectares in Tagaytay City for
which he obligated himself to make a down payment of
P70,000.00. Both sales, while duly acknowledged before a Notary
Public, do not disclose any evidence of registration.73 (Emphasis
supplied)

The Court examined the Rollo of the Banco De Oro case
and found that, indeed, the Deed of Sale dated March 9,
1979 presented by Atty. Tolentino therein is the very
same Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1979 which gave
rise to the present disbarment case.74
The circumstances surrounding the transactions covered
by the falsified documents, viewed against Atty. Tolentino’s
bare denials, constrain us to apply the rule that in the
absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in
possession of, and who has used, a forged document, is the
forger and, therefore, guilty of falsification.75 The effect of a
presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need
of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case
created, which, if no contrary proof is offered, will thereby
prevail.76 A prima facie case of falsification having been
established, Atty. Tolentino should have presented

sufficient evidence to overcome such burden. Through his
own fault, this he failed to do.
_______________
73 Id., at pp. 452-453.

74 Rollo (No. L-49568), pp. 324-325.
75 Pacasum v. People, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 616,
637-638.
76 Republic v. Vda. de Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004, 424
SCRA 676, 692-693, citing Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the
Philippines, Vol. VII, Part II, p. 7, (1997 ed.).

591
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 591

Furthermore, We are convinced of Atty. Tolentino’s

dishonesty when he denied his association with Notary
Public Perfecto. The March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale shows a
contract of sale executed between Dolores, Romulo, Rafaela
and Ernestina Natanauan, as vendors, and Atty. Tolentino,
as vendee, and notarized by “Notary Public”
Perfecto.77 This clearly belies Atty. Tolentino’s claim that
he does not personally know Perfecto nor dealt with him in
any capacity. This, in turn, further bolsters the conclusion
that he had knowledge of or participation in the alleged
falsifications.
In addition, We stress that while Atty. Tolentino
vehemently denies any participation in the alleged
falsification of the August 3, 1979 Deed of Sale, he kept
silent (both in his Comment and the subsequent motions he
filed before the IBP and the Supreme Court) as to the
March 9, 1979 Deed of Sale, a copy of which was attached
as Annex I of the disbarment complaint. It also does not
appear that Atty. Tolentino ever disputed his signature
appearing in conformity to the Spouses Tolentino’s
Affidavit dated December 2, 1980 stating that the property
never belonged to them and that he (Atty. Tolentino) was
its true and absolute owner.
To Us, these clearly demonstrate Atty. Tolentino’s lack
of candor before the IBP and the Supreme Court. In Silva
Vda. de Fajardo v. Bugaring,78 we held:
x x x Complete candor or honesty is expected from lawyers,

particularly when they appear and plead before the courts for
their own causes x x x. With his armada of legal knowledge and
skills, respondent clearly enjoyed the upper hand. x x x
Respondent is thus reminded that he is first and foremost an
officer of the court. His bounden duty is to assist it in rendering
justice to all. Lest he has forgotten, lawyers must always be
disciples of truth. It is highly
_______________
77 Rollo, pp. 38-39. Emphasis supplied.

78 A.C. No. 5113, October 7, 2004, 440 SCRA 160.

592

reprehensible when they themselves make a travesty of the truth

and mangle the ends of justice. Such behavior runs counter to the
standards of honesty and fair dealing expected from court
officers.79

We reiterate that a lawyer is not merely a professional
but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called
upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing
justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on the
part of a lawyer, an officer of the court, which visibly tends
to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the
administration of justice is contumacious, calling for both
an exercise of disciplinary action and application of the
contempt power.80 For his acts of dishonesty, Atty.
Tolentino not only violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Canon
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he also failed
to observe his duty as an officer of the court.
Furthermore, Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provide that a lawyer shall, “uphold the
Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes” and “at all times, uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the
activities of the Integrated Bar.” Atty. Tolentino’s
deliberate nonparticipation in the disciplinary proceedings
shows a lack of respect for the legal (disciplinary) process
and sullies the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

We agree with the IBP that this constitutes another reason
to suspend Atty. Tolentino from the practice of law:
x x x We cannot ignore the fact that by virtue of one’s

membership in the IBP, a lawyer thus submits himself to the
disciplinary authority of the organization.
_______________
79 Id., at pp. 171-172.

80 Siy v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 158971,
August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 154, 165. See also Masinsin v. Albano, G.R.
No. 86421, May 31, 1994, 232 SCRA 631, 637, citing Zaldivar v. Gonzalez,
Nos. L-79690-707 & L-80578, October 7, 1988, 166 SCRA 316.

593
VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 593

x x x Respondent’s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the

orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the
judicial institution. x x x It is necessary for respondent to
acknowledge the orders of the Commission in deference to its
authority over him as a member of the IBP. His wanton disregard
of its lawful orders subjects him to disciplinary sanction.81
(Citations omitted)

All lawyers must inculcate in themselves that the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege granted only to
those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a
high standard of honesty and fair dealing.82 Lawyers must
conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether
they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,
and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal
profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate
penalty, including suspension and disbarment.83
We thus affirm the IBP Board’s recommended action to
suspend him from the practice of law for three (3) years.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds
respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino GUILTY of violating
the Lawyer’s Oath, and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3)
YEARS EFFECTIVE FROM NOTICE, with a STERN

WARNING that any similar infraction in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
_______________
81 Rollo, p. 253.
82 Tejada v. Palaña, A.C. No. 7434, August 23, 2007, 530 SCRA 771,
776; Ronquillo v. Cezar, A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 1,
7; Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408, 413.
83 Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE) v. Alibutdan-
Diaz, A.C. No. 10134, November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA 351, 357. See also De
Ere v. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December 14, 1999, 320 SCRA 617, 622.

594

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the

Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent Roberto P.
Tolentino’s personal record as an attorney, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio** (Acting CJ.), Leonardo-De Castro, Brion,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Sereno, (CJ.) and Leonen, J., On Official Travel.
Velasco, Jr., J., On Leave.
Respondent Atty. Roberto P. Tolentino suspended from

practice of law for three (3) years for violating the Lawyer’s
Oath, and Canons 1, 7, and 10 of Code of Professional
Responsibility, with stern warning against repetition of
similar infraction.
Notes.—Practice of law embraces any activity, in or out

of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. It includes
performing acts which are characteristics of the legal
profession or rendering any kind of service which requires
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. (Feliciano
vs. Bautista-Lozada, 752 SCRA 245 [2015])
The practice of law is a privilege bestowed on lawyers

who meet high standards of legal proficiency and morality.
(Noble III vs. Ailes, 761 SCRA 1 [2015])

——o0o——
_______________
** Per Special Order No. 2386 dated September 29, 2016.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Natanauan vs. Tolentino, 805 SCRA 571, October 11, 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natanauan vs. Tolentino, 805 SCRA 571, October 11, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/15/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 805

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

fession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to

be disbarred or suspended not only for acts and omissions of

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 573

become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and

failed to observe his duty as an officer of the court. Furthermore,

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ignore the fact that by virtue of one’s membership in the IBP,

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Motion

Rolando B. Aquino for respondent.

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 575

The case originated from a disbarment complaint1 filed

1 Rollo, pp. 2-14.

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rescission of the contract of sale. Consequently, it ordered:

subsequently registered, under TCT No. T-21993, in the

8 Also referred to as “Melquiades” in other parts of the records.

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 577

Inc., where Atty. Tolentino is a stockholder,14 and

14 Id., at pp. 10-11, 49-53.

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the alleged falsifications. He further pointed out that: (1)

Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation, report and

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 579

tion.29 Due to Atty. Tolentino’s repeated failure and refusal

x x x Circumstances exist which point to respondent’s

which mortgaged the parcel of land with the bank. Another

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

dated December 2, 1990 strongly stating, among other things,

Espina’s Report and Recommendation but increasing the

35 Id., at pp. 220-221.

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 581

sideration40 dated July 29, 2011 and August 25, 2011,

proceedings.46 Atty. Tolentino further decries the IBP

40 Id., at pp. 232-236.

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

hence, denial of due process means the total lack of

Sec. 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension.—

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 583

from the practice of his profession, until he has had full

defects in procedural due process may be cured when the

50 G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276.

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

proof, Atty. Tolentino deliberately failed to participate in

It is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 585

that the highest standards of competence, honesty and fair

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended not only for acts

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

office and his unworthiness of the principles that, the

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 587

doing of any in court. All lawyers are obligated to uphold

Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the

3, 1978. We note, however, that Dolores would later on

On ex parte presentation of evidence, complainant testified that

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

purchased their parcel of land located at Barangay Sunga,

Instead of transferring said ownership from Jose Natanauan to

VOL. 805, OCTOBER 11, 2016 589

Spouses Alejo Tolentino and Filomena Tolentino.69 (Emphasis

During the oral argument, the Bank was required to submit

69 Id., at pp. 152-153.